I don't think detonating a _nuclear_ weapon in space is problematic because it is nuclear. Distances are huge. The radiation experienced by any satellite will be near zero, and certainly less than they experience from time to time anyway. The radiation will be a once off event moderated by the inverse square law and the massive distances. It's collisions with space debris which can knock out a satellite, not the radiation. Here ChatGPT is persuaded by me to agree that 1000km or even 100km distance from the explosion makes the effect of EMP and radiation negligible. To get closer than that the number of nuclear explosions would have to be huge. Space debris is the issue, not EMP, not gamma radiation. https://chat.openai.com/share/ac34adac-173e-4acd-aca8-64187b824929
I'm sure there's always reason for some alarm, but Russia and the USA and China and now others are continually launching new satellites, military and civilian. I don't think the New York Times knows what is on the Russian satellites. They repeat what they are told and what they are told is what those who tell want us to know. But I don't know how those who originate the stories know either. I think our opinions are being managed. One can believe two things without contradiction: Yes, Putin is the bad guy. And what we're supposed to think is being manipulated.
- The intent was not to say detonating only a nuclear weapon in space is problematic, detonation of a conventional weapon is equally so. As you rightly point out, the space debris issue is of bigger concern than the radiation.
- If the Kremlin wanted to intimidate, using a nuclear weapon would have a greater effect on the general population than a conventional warhead of greater power, because it would be reported as "nuclear".
- Although again as you point out one detonation probably would not cause significant damage it is the president which is set that is problematic. Until now it appears other than for intelligence gathering purposes and communication, space has not become the next battlefield, as was predicted at the beginning of the space race.
- Then again in fifty or a hundred years people will probably look back and wonder how it was we kept weapons out of space for so long.
I don't think detonating a _nuclear_ weapon in space is problematic because it is nuclear. Distances are huge. The radiation experienced by any satellite will be near zero, and certainly less than they experience from time to time anyway. The radiation will be a once off event moderated by the inverse square law and the massive distances. It's collisions with space debris which can knock out a satellite, not the radiation. Here ChatGPT is persuaded by me to agree that 1000km or even 100km distance from the explosion makes the effect of EMP and radiation negligible. To get closer than that the number of nuclear explosions would have to be huge. Space debris is the issue, not EMP, not gamma radiation. https://chat.openai.com/share/ac34adac-173e-4acd-aca8-64187b824929
I'm sure there's always reason for some alarm, but Russia and the USA and China and now others are continually launching new satellites, military and civilian. I don't think the New York Times knows what is on the Russian satellites. They repeat what they are told and what they are told is what those who tell want us to know. But I don't know how those who originate the stories know either. I think our opinions are being managed. One can believe two things without contradiction: Yes, Putin is the bad guy. And what we're supposed to think is being manipulated.
Hi Paul, thanks for your feedback.
Some thoughts on reading your comments:
- The intent was not to say detonating only a nuclear weapon in space is problematic, detonation of a conventional weapon is equally so. As you rightly point out, the space debris issue is of bigger concern than the radiation.
- If the Kremlin wanted to intimidate, using a nuclear weapon would have a greater effect on the general population than a conventional warhead of greater power, because it would be reported as "nuclear".
- Although again as you point out one detonation probably would not cause significant damage it is the president which is set that is problematic. Until now it appears other than for intelligence gathering purposes and communication, space has not become the next battlefield, as was predicted at the beginning of the space race.
- Then again in fifty or a hundred years people will probably look back and wonder how it was we kept weapons out of space for so long.